lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Shai Erera (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1593) Optimizations to TopScoreDocCollector and TopFieldCollector
Date Wed, 15 Apr 2009 20:05:14 GMT


Shai Erera commented on LUCENE-1593:

bq. I believe if a user upgrades to release XX.9 and removes all code that is using deprecated
methods/classes, it needs to be a jar drop in for 3.0.

This might work, but 3.0 is also about moving to Java 5 with all the implications. If my app
is already on Java 5, then a jar drop is all that'll be required. But if not, I need to update
my app anyway. In addition, there are some changes in runtime behavior that are going to be
made in 3.0. My point is - I don't know who will actually upgrade to 3.0 by just dropping
a jar.

But anyway, I'm not going to argue with policies - you seem to know better than me about Lucene's
back-compat requirements. So the question is whether we want to deprecate these methods and
add the new ones, and if so, can we agree on the new names (add, updateTop)?

> Optimizations to TopScoreDocCollector and TopFieldCollector
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: LUCENE-1593
>                 URL:
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Search
>            Reporter: Shai Erera
>             Fix For: 2.9
> This is a spin-off of LUCENE-1575 and proposes to optimize TSDC and TFC code to remove
unnecessary checks. The plan is:
> # Ensure that IndexSearcher returns segements in increasing doc Id order, instead of
> # Change TSDC and TFC's code to not use the doc id as a tie breaker. New docs will always
have larger ids and therefore cannot compete.
> # Pre-populate HitQueue with sentinel values in TSDC (score = Float.NEG_INF) and remove
the check if reusableSD == null.
> # Also move to use "changing top" and then call adjustTop(), in case we update the queue.
> # some methods in Sort explicitly add SortField.FIELD_DOC as a "tie breaker" for the
last SortField. But, doing so should not be necessary (since we already break ties by docID),
and is in fact less efficient (once the above optimization is in).
> # Investigate PQ - can we deprecate insert() and have only insertWithOverflow()? Add
a addDummyObjects method which will populate the queue without "arranging" it, just store
the objects in the array (this can be used to pre-populate sentinel values)?
> I will post a patch as well as some perf measurements as soon as I have them.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message